Mary Schwartz

Mary Schwartz

You Can’t Fire Me! Check Your Policy

Introduction

The case illustration at hand constitutes a supervisor and a staff, Mary Schwartz, both of whom work in the same organization, that is, Beach Electrical Systems. Schwartz is said to have collaborated with the company for six years and has been terminated from working due to her continued absenteeism within her last three years of service to her company. As her absenteeism is based on her illness, and she always provided concrete, and verifiable issues, Schwartz fights to get back to her full employment status by filing a grievance that she had not received any warning before termination of her work (Freeman & Edward, 2004). She contemplated that she had always attended work regardless of being sick. Apart from sickness, another factors that contributed to her absenteeism is the fact that she had work related issues to attend to.

Based on the supervisor’s arguments, Mary’s performance has been exquisite for the years she has worked for them, but due to her continued absenteeism, her performance can be deemed to have reduced (Kaufman & Bruce, 2008). Schwartz had her work relation terminated few days after she refused to work overtime, saying she had some personal issues she was supposed to solve and could not afford to work overtime on that specific day, Saturday, May 22nd, 2011. Her termination came the next Monday, 24th 2011 where the supervisor fired her saying she had provided poor attendance in her previous two years of service. For this analysis, some questions need to be asked which can help get a better understanding of the basis of the argument. The points include:

What role should Schwartz past work records show in this case?

Mary has been performing great over the previous years with an expectation of having low participation record. The downside ought to be weighed against her nature of work and due to date administration (Grunig, James, Hunt & Todd, 2013). If Mary has never been instrumental in deferrals or unsuitable nature of work, then attendance ought not to frame an essential reason for termination. Her performance in the previous working years has been productive. In fact, it is stated that her performance was exceptional.

Does Management have the right to know why employees refuse to work overtime?

No, the administration lacks the knowledge regarding the privilege why a worker declines to execute tasks extra minutes. A business can require a representative to work additional time and can fire the worker on the off chance that he or she cannot undetake the duty. The Fair Labor Standards Act sets no restrictions on how long a day or week a business can require a worker to work (Kaufman & Bruce, 2008). It just requires that businesses pay representatives extra minute for any hours more than 40 that the worker works in seven days (Kaufman & Bruce, 2008).

Therefore, the representative’s reason is truly insignificant as the firm has a privilege to persuade the worker to work extra minutes paying little respect to any reason why he or she cannot work. Some of the reasons why the workers may refuse to work overtime can be personal or driven by other factors such as sickness and religious events (Freeman & Edward, 2004). If the employee has stated early enough that they cannot function over time, it is only fair that they be treated with the same respect and accordance. He or she should be given the free time that they require.

Evaluate the point of view of Mary Schwartz and supervision in this case.

The arrangement plainly expressed that employees will be cautioned for non-attendance before they are terminated. Mary’s chief had conversed with occasionally about her participation issue, yet she was never given an official cautioning notice that she would be fired if her participation record did not make strides (Radhakrishna & Raju, 2006). Additionally, Mary’s unlucky deficiencies were a direct result of ailments or business related mischances, and since she did not get oral or composed notices from the administration, she did not think it was an issue.

In addition to this, the fact that Mary refused to work overtime on the coming Saturday did not indicate that she never thought of the welfare of the company (Radhakrishna & Raju, 2006). For her past six years, it can be argued that she had good thoughts of improving the company’s productivity, and even if she felt sick, Schwartz continued to try her best to at least show up to work. Her commitment to continuing to work indicates that she had the best interests of the firm at heart (Radhakrishna & Raju, 2006). Had she not have valued her job, she would not have even said that she had her personal issues and she could not come to work overtime.

The vote for either the Employee or the Employer

Mary ought not to be let away because she is honest to goodness purposes behind her unlucky deficiencies and that the organization approach was not met. Everything ought to have been recorded and issues ought to have been unmistakably expressed alongside results (Radhakrishna & Raju, 2006). Considering the arguments of both the supervisor and the Mary Schwartz, the side that is best to be supported is that of Madam Schwartz. Her argument is that the manager should have not fired her for continued absenteeism since she had concrete, solid reasons as to why she did so. The manager had said that Schwartz was a good performer regarding her work productivity, and even the supervisor had not mentioned anywhere if and how her productivity in work changed when she started to be absent.

Apart from having been absent for some period, Schwartz claims that she had not been warned of her absenteeism, so she was supposed to be warned before being terminated from work. Mary had claimed that she had her personal issues which she wanted to attend during the day in which they were supposed to work over time. As argued above, the reason as to why she could not do overtime work on that specified day are not of importance to the manager. Therefore the manager should be more considerate when it comes to such issues (Grunig et al., 2013).

Therefore, Mary Schwartz ought to be given a leeway due to her past performance in light of the fact that one-time execution issues like absenteeism are not unmistakable and reasonable parameters to be judged

 References

Grunig, James, Hunt & Todd (2013). Managing Public Relations. McGrawHill pub.

Freeman & Edward (2004), the Stakeholder Approach Revisited.

Radhakrishna, A., and R. Raju, (2006). A Study On Effect Of Human Resource Growth O

      Employment Relations.

Kaufman & Bruce E. (2008). Managing the Human Factor: The Early Years of Human Resource Management in American Industry.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GWEXDDSRGCF10” for 10% discount